New objections to Purgatory

  • Thread starter Thread starter NormalBeliever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason why I’m asking is because I’m pointing out potential problems with that viewpoint. IF the kid NOT being forgiven means he won’t get in the house - well this means the kid has to pay a neverending debt - which he already wants to. So the only way the kid can be forgiven is if some part of the debt is cancelled.
 
Do you know of an answer though that you could provide for this?
 
Do you know of a particular response though? I mean, if you’ve already read them then you likely know at least a general explanation of it. I’ll search for more literature on this though, so thanks for the advice.
 
Could you point to a particular book for now though? I’ll try to google it first.
 
NormalBeliever said:
Matthew 18: 23-27
Click to expand...
Be careful with the line of thought – that this parable is a doctrinal explanation of God and forgiveness. After all, before the parable is over, the master revokes his forgiveness and hands the servant over “until he should pay back the whole debt”… 😉
NormalBeliever said:
Do you know of a particular response though?
Click to expand...
In His mercy, God forgives our sins. In response to this loving act of mercy, we respond by making reparation for the already-forgiven sin. It’s an act of love in response to an act of love.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You have to be careful with metaphors, because they only illustrate part of the truth. To use your metaphor, if the child refused forgiveness, that would be akin to failing to repent. Failing to repent would lead to eternal damnation.

The Old Testament must also be interpreted in light of the New Testament. The Ninevites still went to essentially purgatory after deatg, because Christ had not yet died for our sins and reopened the gates of heaven to humanity. The souls of the righteous rested in the “Bosom of Abraham”, until Christ died and descended there to lead them to Heaven.
 
Well, I’ll take a bite. Two responses that quickly come to mind are:
  1. It’s doing reparation for what doesn’t need repairing.
  2. An act of love paying for an act of love no longer makes the love a gift, since you’re treating it as something you have to pay for.
 
NormalBeliever said:
It’s doing reparation for what doesn’t need repairing.
Click to expand...
I disagree. There’s still “repair” that’s necessary. I think I’d counter that God has forgiven the offense, but we still need to show our gratitude to His loving initiative. Another way to look at it is from the perspective of “woundedness”: God’s forgiveness of our sins returns us to His grace, but we’re still wounded by the effects of our sins. Purgation is what heals us of our woundedness and makes us whole.
NormalBeliever said:
An act of love paying for an act of love no longer makes the love a gift, since you’re treating it as something you have to pay for.
Click to expand...
It’s not “payment”. No offense intended, but do you come from a Protestant background at some point in your life? Your perspective here is filled with the notions of “penal substitution” – that is, of the idea of a God who demands payment and does not relent until it’s paid off. (The Catholic Church doesn’t support that doctrine.)

Even in your first post, you frame up the situation as “pay for sin or God must punish you”, and that’s not the situation at all! It’s “fix the woundedness in ourselves through an act of love in response to God’s mercy”!!!
 
  1. Yes, that’s what I thought as well - we should be loyal to God in being good which is what He wants. In order to be fully happy we need to get rid of all sin, which is a process. It could also be akin to a moral obligation of trying to be good and moral as much as we can.
Another related thing is how Paul describes God disciplining us as his children in Hebrews 12 - the discipline is for our growth in righteousness, not as a strict payment for something.

And interestingly enough, in the same verses in Hebrews 12 where Paul says that discipline often seems painful he also contrasts God’s discipline with the discipline that earthly fathers inflicted on people at the time - implying it was wrong most likely due to it’s excessive harshness. Which by analogy opens the possibility that the discipline of Purgatory, while still painful, won’t be in the spirit of harshness and so isn’t excessively painful:
Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it
Click to expand...
. – Hebrews 12: 9-11
  1. Don’t worry, no offense taken! And nope, not from a Protestant background. Some of the objections are partially from Protestants which I’ve thought about and developed a bit, along with the analogies often used of Purgatory, so that’s why they sound like that.
The analogies themselves aren’t perfect and the arguments against them reflect how they are understood - it’s not about a strict payment of debt, I agree.
 
Last edited:
The people of Nineveh didn’t just change their heart, the king put on “sackcloth and ashes,” ie did penance, no? Fasting and sackcloth was declared for the citizens of Nineveh.
 
Last edited:
To clarify though to avoid confusion (and you don’t need to respond to this since this is just a repeat of what I said previously) - the reason I kept asking what forgiveness means is because either the forgiveness does address the debt (being thrown out forever is either because the kid is unrepentant or that’s how his debt is payed), or not which would make it merely an allowance to the kid to pay the debt and a confirmation that you accept his promise of payment - which most people don’t use in real life since by wanting to pay the kid is exhibiting repentance which is enough to allow him to pay.

As you described, the former is what forgiveness does, which answers the question and leaves only the Matthew verse.

Anyways, thanks for the suggested reading! I appreciate the helpfulness. And no need to get frustrated over a question being repeated! Though I could have been more clearer with my main point about that, so sorry.
 
Last edited:
  1. About Nineveh, though they may not have thought in terms of eternal or temporal, the punishment by God was clearly in the temporal category, and can be understood in light of later understanding. God doesn’t just have one audience in mind, but what he writes is also relevant later down the road, especially with continued revelation regarding forgiveness. It’s not a complicated explanation to say God cancelled temporal punishment in forgiveness here.
  2. As for their later deaths, I mean a few weeks or months after their previous deadline, and this also implies the Ninevites didn’t do anything further really bad to get punished again since they repented of their evil behaviour.
  3. So if they died later it’s unlikely they would have to still undergo temporal punishment because the temporal punishment God already planned to give them was cancelled by Him.
They could have undergone it for other things, but not for their prior bad behaviour.

As for the penance - it was a sign showing how sorry they were, and it’s true that it didn’t satisfy for their sins. The whole incident says God had compassion on them, which is weird if their penance satisfied the punishment which would make compassion superfluous - it would be a matter of satisfied justice. And even then the penance can’t do it either way because the scope of the punishment is destruction of the whole city which is much larger than the penance.
 
An infinite debt cannot be completely paid strictly speaking - it can only be dealt with. Those in Hell are there because they refuse to repent and refuse God’s offer of having their debt-offenses wiped away.
 
NormalBeliever said:
Another related thing is how Paul describes God disciplining us as his children in Hebrews 12 - the discipline is for our growth in righteousness, not as a strict payment for something.
Click to expand...
This is a completely different context, however. Discipline is provided when there’s an opportunity to learn and repent, turning back to the right way. Purgatory, though, is only a post-judgment reality, and it’s only for those who have already been judged worthy of heaven. So, I’m not sure you can bring in the discussion of discipline from Hebrews 12 in this context, in any meaningful way.
NormalBeliever said:
Some of the objections are partially from Protestants which I’ve thought about and developed a bit, along with the analogies often used of Purgatory, so that’s why they sound like that.
Click to expand...
Ahh… got it! 👍
NormalBeliever said:
About Nineveh, though they may not have thought in terms of eternal or temporal, the punishment by God was clearly in the temporal category, and can be understood in light of later understanding. God doesn’t just have one audience in mind, but what he writes is also relevant later down the road, especially with continued revelation regarding forgiveness.
Click to expand...
Sure – but we have to understand it in light of God’s revelation to the original audience, and not ask the original audience to understand it in terms of our present understanding!
NormalBeliever said:
So if they died later it’s unlikely they would have to still undergo temporal punishment because the temporal punishment God already planned to give them was cancelled by Him.
Click to expand...
This is the part that is most confusing. Even if I were to assent to the notion that there was no ‘temporal punishment due to sin’ prior to the understanding of eternal reward and punishment, I don’t see how that means that “the temporal punishment God already planned to give them was cancelled by Him.” That runs counter to Catholic teaching about penance and indulgences. Think of it this way: you can get an indulgence (or perform sufficient penance) to wipe away the ‘temporal punishment due to sin’ for the sins that were absolved today, right? But, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be temporal punishment due to sin for the sins that you commit tomorrow! Those future sins, as well, not only require forgiveness but also carry ‘temporal punishment due to sin.’
 
  1. That’s why I said by analogy - it’s not the same of course, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used in ANY way. Just as it’s possible to view 1 Cor 3 (the parts about wood and hay tested by fire on Judgement Day) as being somewhat related to Purgatory, it should also be possible to relate this part somewhat to it as well. And I’ve seen lots of people use this part to defend Purgatory as well.
And discipline isn’t just limited to teaching us what’s right and wrong and making us start repenting, but also simply to strengthen us where we already are and to help us in the growth process.
  1. I think I specified about this when referring to their previous sins - even if they would have to undergo purification for new sins, they wouldn’t have to do it for the previous sins.
 
Last edited:
NormalBeliever said:
That’s why I said by analogy - it’s not the same of course, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used in ANY way.
Click to expand...
OK. So, if it’s “not the same”, then it’s not the same, and therefore, not relevant to the topic at hand.
NormalBeliever said:
And I’ve seen lots of people use this part to defend Purgatory as well.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen lots of people argue that the moon landings were fakes. That doesn’t mean that the argument holds water, just because some folks argue for it.
NormalBeliever said:
And discipline isn’t just limited to teaching us what’s right and wrong and making us start repenting, but also simply to strengthen us where we already are and to help us in the growth process.
Click to expand...
Still irrelevant, since ‘purgation’ happens after judgment, and therefore, there’s no need for ‘strengthening’ or ‘growth’, as such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top